It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Anthropogenic Climate Change/IPCC Fraud - Let me speak to you as a scientist for a moment.

page: 1
58
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+39 more 
posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Let me speak to you as a scientist for a moment. That's right: I am a scientist, who has actually done scientific research scientifically.

I earned a bachelor's degree in biology, two master's degrees in ethnobotany and anthropology, respectively, and a Ph.D. in nutritional ethnomedicine from the University of California, Berkely. In order to earn these degrees, I had to not only collect and analyze data, but draw scientifically valid conclusions that other scientists concurred with.

When I say I did scientific research scientifically, I mean that I followed that standards commonly referred to as the scientific method. The scientific method has certain rules you have to follow or you're not doing science.You have to ensure the integrity of your data. You have to make sure your data is representative. You have to control for other possible causes of your results.

Once you've completed your study and published your results, they are subject to what scientists call peer review. That means that other scientists examine your work. They try to confirm you haven't made any errors in the way you've collected data or errors of logic in your conclusions.

I had to follow all of these principals to earn my Ph.D. It doesn't take an advanced degree to understand them. They're common sense. But when the government takes over science, common sense goes out the window.

The climate change scam is accepted only by politicians and scientists who want more government, more taxes, and more regulations.

That political action group posing as a scientific community, the IPCC, says the debate is over about man-made global warming. That's how you know they're not real scientists.

Real scientists never say "the debate is over" about anything. All scientific knowledge is open to challenge at all times. Thats how great advances have been made. Imagine if the debate had been over when Isaac Newton had published his theories, meaning Albert Einstein never published his. Imagine if the debate had been over when scientists concluded that man could not fly.

The IPCC is a collection of politicians and bought-off scientistswho are producing junk science for political reasons. It's Lysenkoism all over again. They've broken every rule of the scientific method, just as Lysenko did.

First their samples aren't representative. One of the reasons NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) was able to report 2014 as "the hottest year on record" is because of the huge increases in part of South America, encompassing parts of Brazil, Paraguay, and Argentina. Guess what? There are almost no weather stations in the region. What few stations there are certainly can't be representative of such a massive region.

They also use temperature readings from thermometers located in places that are obviously hotter than the larger surrounding area, like parking lots, concrete buildings, or inside metal beams. Do you think maybe that skews temperature readings a little warmer than they otherwise would be? Meteorologist Anthony Watts saw right through it. He studied the positioning of the so-called weather stations and called out the con artists.
"the question remains as to why they continue to use a polluted mix of well-sited and poorly-sited stations"

In attempting to answer Watt's questions about the location of weather stations, the fake scientists say satellite data confirms the findings on the ground. Watts called them on that scam too. It's a classic case of failure to control for other possible causes.

No one disputeds that temperatures are warmer in and around cities. It's not because of greenhouse gases. Cities just generate more heat. If man was causing a global warming, the temperature should be higher in the country, too. As I said, you don't have to be a scientist. It's just common sense.

A larger percentage of the Earth has been urbanized over the past several decades, so satellite measurements read higher temperatures. Watts was quick to recognize this, as any real scientist would be. it didn't occur to the climate change pseudoscientists because they aren't interested in finding the truth. They are interested in promoting their political agenda.

Increased urbanization isn't even the most significant reason there might be warmer temperatures. The real reason the planet is warmer today is that it's NORMAL for the Earth to go through warming and cooling periods. It's been doing so for millions of years, long before man inhabited this planet, much less started building factories.


Neither temperatures nor CO2 levels are anywhere near their peak over the Earth's history. During the Cretaceous period, approximately 145 to 66 million years ago, mean atmospheric CO2 content was about 1700 ppm. That's six times what it was just before the industrial revolution. In October 2014 it was 395.93 ppm, still orders of magnitude lower than during the Cretaceous period.
Mean surface temperature during the Cretaceous period was 18'C, 4'C higher than it is now.

During this period of significantly higher atmospheric C02, and temperature levels, life was flourishing. Dinosaurs continued to dominate the land, butn ew groups of mammals, birds, and flowering plants appeared. That's no a big suprise. Contrary to what fake scientists tell your, higher CO2 levels are good for plants and warmer temperatures are good for life in general.

You dont have to go back millions of years to find much warmer temperatures than anything we've seen during the industrial age. Temperatures were warmer and ice sheets smaller during the Medieval Warm Period, just one thousand years ago. Dr. Reid A. Bryson, universally recognized as the father of modern climatology, confirms that even today the ice in Greenland covers old Viking farms.

Bryson's a real climate scientist, the father of the whole discipline, and he doesn't believe the climate change scam at all. He's not alone among real scientists. There are actually thirty-one thousand who signed a petition to formally register their dissent to this politcally motivated hoax.

Obviously for these tens of thousands of scientists, the debate is not over. For real scientists, it never is. That means the IPCC's scientists work hasn't passed peer review at all. The IPCC simply smears and ignores any scientist who doesn't concur.

As I've said, one of the things peer review helps scientists avoid is basic errors in logic.

The IPCC looked at data that indicates warming periods have been accompanied by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over time. That could mean carbon dioxide causes warming. It could mean warming causes increased levels of carbon dioxide. Or, it could mean neither. Maybe something else caused both temperatures and carbon dioxide levels to rise.

That's how a real scientist would think. That's how I had to think to complete my Ph.D. dissertation. But since the IPCC scientist' agenda from the beginning was political instead of scientific, they immediately assumed the higher carbon dioxide levels were causing the warming. They never considered the alternatives, because the alternatives wouldn't support the socialist politicians.




posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Well, while I can appreciate the time it took to write all that, you have a curiously unscientific way of postulating your proposals without referencing the well known counter-arguments (you know, as 'scientists do') to everything you've just said. It tends to de-legitimize what you're saying....



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: knightsofcydonia

I think that man is accelerating the natural warming process through his use of fossil fuels. However, what do i know? I'm no scientist.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: lostbook
a reply to: knightsofcydonia

I think that man is accelerating the natural warming process through his use of fossil fuels. However, what do i know? I'm no scientist.


Fossil fuels are a tiny fraction of warming gasses. Livestock and the agriculture it takes to feed it produces far more detrimental greenhouse gas and destruction of carbon sinks. Fossil fuel is just a better blind target than Bessie the cow.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: knightsofcydonia

S&f... 98% of scientists agree. I hear that and always ask myself when the ballot went around and why didn't I get one?

Then people laughed at me when I said more CO2 would likely fuel an overall increase in plant biomass.

The problem is a bunch of people that don't know a thing about wide swaths of scientific fields read an article and then they know everything. Ultimately leading to carbon tax... that's the solution.

I'm guessing by your field of study you're familiar with Dr. Jim Duke. Took a wild medicinal field seminar with him in downeast Maine. Learned more in a week than in a decade of foraging and reading. Love the field of ethnobotany.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: knightsofcydonia

I agree with your position completely, and I'm glad you decided to bring this topic up again because it definitely should not be forgotten.
But as has already been mentioned, I think not providing sources and references for your argument takes away from it's gravitas.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn
But as has already been mentioned, I think not providing sources and references for your argument takes away from it's gravitas.

I won't read it. I generally don't come here to read scientific papers with long lists of references. Sorry. But this is an "entertainment" site for me.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: knightsofcydonia
For someone with a PHD your grammar and sentence structure is very poor. For someone with a PHD your obsession with two aspects of "measurement" (co2 and temperature) is very unscientific. Anyone can claim to be anything without proof!!!!

Please answer the following questions related to your narrow ranting focus :

1. Nature reflects temperature with its flora and fauna all of which is moving polewards indicating an increase in average annual temperature. What is the real reason if its not temperature (plants can't read IPCC thermometers).

2. Glaciers are made up of ice which freezes/melts around 0C. Because of this they advance down the hill in winter due to colder temperatures and melt/recede up the hill in summer when it's warmer. Given that the vast majority of glaciers worldwide are receding year on year this indicates an INCREASE in average annual temperature. If this is not the case then what is causing this (Glaciers can't read IPCC thermometers) ?



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: lostbook
a reply to: knightsofcydonia

I think that man is accelerating the natural warming process through his use of fossil fuels. However, what do i know? I'm no scientist.


Fossil fuels are a tiny fraction of warming gasses. Livestock and the agriculture it takes to feed it produces far more detrimental greenhouse gas and destruction of carbon sinks. Fossil fuel is just a better blind target than Bessie the cow.
But other sources of emissions ranging from agriculture to logging (liberating 'carbon sinks') are described in climate change literature.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 03:05 PM
link   
If—

BY RUDYARD KIPLING


(‘Brother Square-Toes’—Rewards and Fairies)
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch
,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!

edit on 2-2-2018 by knightsofcydonia because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-2-2018 by knightsofcydonia because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-2-2018 by knightsofcydonia because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: yorkshirelad

Since when did PHDs require a PHD in professional writing as a prerequisite?

Ever heard the saying it's easier to fool someone than it is to convince them they have been fooled?



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Ksihkehe

2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey asked

“When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

“Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

That's is where the 98% comes from. I



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 03:51 PM
link   
I can appreciate your education.

But you have merely resorted to a logical fallacy to give weight to your argument that climate change is a hoax.

You've simply appealed to your own authority, and that's a no-go at this station.

I too have a very scientific mind. I consider myself pretty conservative politically as others here would confirm, and literate in terms of scientific research.

I find your assertions lacking and politically motivated.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: knightsofcydonia

Wait, someone asked a serious question and you responded with that?

Is there a stolen valor law for fake PhDs?



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Many of you have never heard of the Vostok ice core samples. But have you heard about Al Gore's big lie sample?
Well, look up the Vostok ice core samples.

This research is very important. It's real data. It's not created by Al Gore. It's not created for the pope. It was obtained by drilling down into the ice above Lake Vostok in Antarctica to a depth of ten thousand feet. French and Russian scientists obtained deep core samples allowing them to look at, among other things, the history of temperature and carbon dioxide over the past 420,000 years.

Guest what? The samples did show that increases in carbon dioxide always accopanied increases in temperature, but the increases in temperature always came first. The increases in CO2 consistently lagged behind temperature increases by about eight hundred years.

That proves increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere didn't cause warming.

How could it have, if it didn't happen until after the warming? This knocks over the whole house of cards.

That's not all the Vostok ice core samples tell us. As Joe Martino reports, 325,000 years ago, global temps and CO2 levels were higher than they are today. I guess Barack Obama didn't get any of this when he was at Columbia learning how to become a community agitator.

In fact, we are right now near the end of another warm interglacial. And those of us who are educated in science know we're actualy heading into another glacial cooling period where global temperatures will drop and ice will again form heavily at the poles. It's already happening. The Antarctic has just had the greatest growth of ice in a very long period of time. Don't take my word for it. Research it yourself.


So what can we say about this group of political radicals and their fake climate change research? In short, they don't do scientific research scientifically. Their data is not representative of the Earth's climate as a whole. They don't control for other causes of temperature change. Their methodology and results are not approved by their peers, other than those bought off by the politicians. but that's not the most damning evidence against this scam.


edit on 2-2-2018 by knightsofcydonia because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: yorkshirelad
a reply to: knightsofcydonia
For someone with a PHD your grammar and sentence structure is very poor. For someone with a PHD your obsession with two aspects of "measurement" (co2 and temperature) is very unscientific. Anyone can claim to be anything without proof!!!!

Please answer the following questions related to your narrow ranting focus :

1. Nature reflects temperature with its flora and fauna all of which is moving polewards indicating an increase in average annual temperature. What is the real reason if its not temperature (plants can't read IPCC thermometers).

2. Glaciers are made up of ice which freezes/melts around 0C. Because of this they advance down the hill in winter due to colder temperatures and melt/recede up the hill in summer when it's warmer. Given that the vast majority of glaciers worldwide are receding year on year this indicates an INCREASE in average annual temperature. If this is not the case then what is causing this (Glaciers can't read IPCC thermometers) ?



lol!

And your sentence structure and grammar are any better?

If you're calling someone out on ATS regarding their grammar "it's" best to check your own before pulling the trigger.


P.S. I don't believe 95% of the hype regarding global warming claims, however it's good to keep an open mind, and see both sides.
edit on 2-2-2018 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: knightsofcydonia

Agreed. Thank you.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: yorkshirelad
a reply to: knightsofcydonia
For someone with a PHD your grammar and sentence structure is very poor. For someone with a PHD your obsession with two aspects of "measurement" (co2 and temperature) is very unscientific. Anyone can claim to be anything without proof!!!!

Please answer the following questions related to your narrow ranting focus :

1. Nature reflects temperature with its flora and fauna all of which is moving polewards indicating an increase in average annual temperature. What is the real reason if its not temperature (plants can't read IPCC thermometers).

2. Glaciers are made up of ice which freezes/melts around 0C. Because of this they advance down the hill in winter due to colder temperatures and melt/recede up the hill in summer when it's warmer. Given that the vast majority of glaciers worldwide are receding year on year this indicates an INCREASE in average annual temperature. If this is not the case then what is causing this (Glaciers can't read IPCC thermometers) ?


How dare you.

He is a scientist, doing science, scientifically.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: knightsofcydonia

Besides agreeing with what you have posted I would like ANYONE to show where ANY of the DOOM computer models that got this movement started have been correct.. They can not...

I do not worry particularly about a warmer planet and the disruptions that might provide for it has been a heck of a lot warmer in the past....BUT... if we are going into a cyclic global cooling (Mini or even a miscue ice age) there will be billions who will starve and hordes of people moving to find someplace where they can grow and or procure food..

We do not have a choice for we are all along for the ride no matter how much they want to tax us..



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: yorkshirelad
a reply to: knightsofcydonia
For someone with a PHD your grammar and sentence structure is very poor. For someone with a PHD your obsession with two aspects of "measurement" (co2 and temperature) is very unscientific. Anyone can claim to be anything without proof!!!!

Please answer the following questions related to your narrow ranting focus :

1. Nature reflects temperature with its flora and fauna all of which is moving polewards indicating an increase in average annual temperature. What is the real reason if its not temperature (plants can't read IPCC thermometers).

2. Glaciers are made up of ice which freezes/melts around 0C. Because of this they advance down the hill in winter due to colder temperatures and melt/recede up the hill in summer when it's warmer. Given that the vast majority of glaciers worldwide are receding year on year this indicates an INCREASE in average annual temperature. If this is not the case then what is causing this (Glaciers can't read IPCC thermometers) ?


what do you make of this ? Antarctica ice sheets gain bigly.




top topics



 
58
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join